The Seattle Seahawks are Playing for 2010 in 2009

by John Morgan on Oct 29, 2009 12:21 PM PDT Comment 22 comments

More photos » Elaine Thompson - AP

A new face may be under center next season, but most of today's roster reflects tomorrow's roster. Before the Seahawks can make a run, they first must show they can be good.

Browse more photos »

Back to business.

We are six games through the season but the combined forces of probability and fate and time has many of us convinced the season is over. Seattle is in the repugnant place for a franchise where April seems more optimistic than October. Optmistic, maybe. More important? Never.

As I detailed last Spring and insisted last Fall, bad teams rarely rebound to greatness or even respectability. Seattle was bad last season. Very bad. Niners bad. Injuries, the seeming bizarreness of their extent, and the ever hoped for return to health had many thinking this season would be different. Instead, Seattle suffered another wave of injuries and is again facing late October without a realistic shot at the playoffs.

Sunday is Seattle's get-healthy game. It matters the world.

Talent is interdependent in football. A hobbled Brandon Mebane slows the ends. Mebane is healthy. A rickshaw starting at left tackle grounds the run game. Seattle imported a healthy left tackle. A Steve Vallos mucks everything up. Rob Sims has been a full participant in practice.

Sunday is Seattle's get-healthy game. Whoever Seattle signs, cuts, draft, promotes, loses or restructures this offseason, and whomever does it, the team that takes the field this Sunday is nine-tenths the team that will start the season next September. Maybe Seattle lacks a realistic path to the playoffs this season, but a 7-9 team that breaks late, clobbering chumps and kicking pretenders out of the playoff race, is much more likely to be a contender next season.

Seattle can strike a blow for their future this Sunday. Over the next few days, I will preview every little thing that matters: Matchups, scheme and execution. One win moves Seattle to 3-4 and puts it a win away from last season's total. A win away from .500. It may not be enough to get back into the race this season, but it strikes a resounding blow for the future of the Seahawks.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't give up until we're mathematically eliminated.

But even then I don’t give up because Fuck Math.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 29, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And the biggest thing is

we’d like to see improved performance on the road. At 1pm EST. Against a team with a winning record or close to it. From the defense and Hasselbeck, particularly. If we don’t start slow, but hot out of the gate, play well, and still lose, that will be one of the bigger moral victories for this team since I dunno 2004 or something.

by jacobstevens on Oct 29, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

We need to shake our general ineffectiveness on the road. That will continue to hamstring us regardless of talent, coaching, etc.

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Oct 29, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SEA! HAWK!

It’s obviously the homer in me, but I feel that we have a great chance to win this game.

by GarethLewin on Oct 29, 2009 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Must be.

There is a chance. It’s real. It’s not great, and it requires elements that are outside of our control. Namely, for the Boys to underwhelm. They have that habit. I anticipated the Jags to do it, and thought the matchup favored us playing them well. This is the closest to that this year.

But the chances aren’t great.

by jacobstevens on Oct 29, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ANS gives us 17%

Not great, but better than the 7% the niners have.

by GarethLewin on Oct 29, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a side note - But the casinos are getting killed by NFL games this season.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 29, 2009 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

make a fanshot.

Just kidding, I don’t care. Obviously I was wrong about the St. Louis Rams rebounding this year, but as I looked at the season, in no small part aided by the Football Outsiders 2009 Almanac, I noticed that there would likely be a high number of just uncompetitive teams. The have nots. Performance across the league would be down, and the haves, wouldn’t all completely be the usual suspects, but there just wouldn’t be very many of them.

That part seems to have held up. I’ve heard national coverage start to pick up on this. I think this year is worse than normal, and not indicative of a trend, but I do think league expansion in the form of teams (4 in the space of 7 years) and roster expansion (3 expansions since the Panthers and Jags came around) has contributed to reduced parity, our first 16-0 season, our first 0-16 season, and so on.

Vegas likes to push lines to encourage betting. It makes me speculate that the juicy underdogs have just not been up to the task for upsets, and the underwhelming favorites have really not been in danger all along.

And Denver and Cincinnati. Those have to be a big part of it.

by jacobstevens on Oct 29, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was noticing more blow outs every weekend then usual.

But last week apparently vegas took it in the pants.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 29, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only two underdogs won last week

by jacobstevens on Oct 29, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There were a lot of good teams going against shitty ones last week.

The two that really jumped out at me were Colts-Rams and Pats-Bucs. Note to self: bet on games if they’re that lopsided.

by thebyron on Oct 29, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no team outside of our division I'd rather destroy than this next one. Crush Romo and Co.

the team that takes the field this Sunday is nine-tenths the team that will start the season next September

Is this based on what you think, looking at contracts, or something else? Many teams, especially bad ones, often have much more turnover than tenth, don’t they?

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Oct 29, 2009 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That caught my eye, as well

I hadn’t had the thought prior, but I envisioned that if we have a year as bad as last, in the end, a blow-up. Cutting bait on Branch, Kerney, Walt, probably Jennings. Letting Redding walk, maybe letting Spencer and Sims and Tapp walk, though I’d rather keep them. Getting a new QB but not dropping Hasselbeck yet.

That would definitely be another story. I don’t know if it’s necessary, or if it would be a better plan. The team still feels well built. But without a blow-up, a couple key guys at most move on, and we cut a couple other expensive guys. Another free agency and draft that brings in guys for the future (QB) as much as it does for the present. The only way I could envision even average turnover is if we blow it up.

by jacobstevens on Oct 29, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe letting Tapp walk?

Let Walt retire…I know he wants to come back, but lots of money and he’ll be 36 in January. But I agree with cutting or possibly trading if we can, Branch, Kerney, Terril, Jennings and Spencer. Sign Redding for 1 more year if he can stay healthy all season, resign Sims and Tapp…especially Tapp! The way Tapp and Jackson are playing now, they can start at the ends and dominate.

by jmass33 on Oct 29, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not necessarily advocating it.

I want Tapp back. I want to see over the remainder of the season that we’re up & coming and don’t need to blow it up. I could envision it happening. I may come to think it would be a good idea. That’s unlikely, though.

by jacobstevens on Oct 30, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not giving up on the Seahawks

We still have a chance and I don’t even want to think about next year. Yes we do look bad right now but as Rocky would say, " It ain’t over till it’s over" So I still have my hopes.

by Seahawksfan23 on Oct 29, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Does this team have to get as bad as the Rams before Seahawks fans get past the denial phase?

by Mr Fish on Oct 29, 2009 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Denial of what?

I’m curious what you mean.

by John Morgan on Oct 29, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Denial of us being as bad as the Rams?

I mean, obviously we are not as bad as the rams, but it makes his sentence make ‘sense’

by GarethLewin on Oct 29, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Part of the fun of supporting a sports team is looking at the positives.

by GarethLewin on Oct 29, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we don't get good

until our O-line gets good.

Everything else is in place.

by Kevin M Smith on Oct 29, 2009 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I love your optimism

and wish that I shared it. IF the Seahawks win today, one hell of a big IF, then I will be optimistic. I will then see this as a possible 8 – 8 year, vastly improved over last year. I would also expect next year to be better, 10 and 6 or even 12 and 4.

If they win today. I will be otherwise involved today so I’ll just say it now, GO HAWKS!

by mrcoffee1969 on Nov 1, 2009 9:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs